Tanach · Rishonim on Tanach · Ibn Ezra · Torah
Ibn Ezra on Genesis 2:17/אבן עזרא על בראשית ב׳:י״ז
אואחר שאמר מעץ הדעת לא תאכל, מה צורך למלת ממנו רק הוסיף לבאר, וכן "ותפתח ותראהו את הילד" (שמות ב ו), או טעמו אפילו מעט ממנו, ודקדוק "ממנו" בס' היסוד תמצאנו, ודע כי אדם מלא דעת היה כי השם לא יצוה לאשר אין לו דעת רק דעת טוב ורע בדבר אחד לבדו לא ידע הלא תראה שקרא שמות לכל הבהמה והעוף כפי תולדת כל אחד ואחד והנה חכם גדול היה, ולולי שהיה כן לא הביא השם את בריאותיו אליו לראות מה יקראם, והוא יודע ממנו שהוא בער, גם השם הראה לו עץ הדעת, כי הנה אשתו ידעה שהוא בתוך הגן:
1[THOU SHALT NOT EAT OF IT.] Even though I (God) permitted you to eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden, do not eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge.61 One might ask, What need is there for the term of it after having stated but of the tree of the knowledge…thou shalt not eat?62. It would have sufficed to state, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. The answer is that the Bible elaborates. We find a similar case in And she opened it, and saw it, even the child (Ex. 2:6).63. The elaboration is there for emphasis (Weiser). It is also possible that the term of it means even a part of it. You will find the exact grammatical explanation of the term mi-mennu (of it) in the Sefer ha-yisod.64 Note that Adam was an intelligent being, for God would not direct commands to one who was unintelligent. He was deficient in the knowledge of good and evil of only one thing.65 Don’t you see that Adam named every animal and fowl according to the nature of each of their respective species? Thus he was extremely intelligent. If Adam was unintelligent, God, knowing this, would not have brought His creatures to him to see what name he would give to each one of them. God also showed Adam the tree of knowledge, for his wife knew that it was in the midst of the garden.66